Be me

almost all of the commands you need to run are not something you're going to have memorized from regular linux use. if you're claiming you've memorized all of the different syntaxes and sequencing for install you're either lying or autistic. if you have to look them up like everybody does you agree with me.

It's not that hard you fucking retard, and if Arch had a GUI installer that would make it far less configurable, now please, go kill yourself you dense shit sucker

since you can't read my post and don't understand my point I would have guessed you would have also preferred a gui, but maybe when everything goes over your head you just default to anger

Install Artix

But user, there's no reason to not use SystemD

Attached: 1544861727822.jpg (862x586, 58K)

I don't agree with you and I had to look at them when I installed it, they are part of repairing or reinstalling an already installed system. I didn't learn anything important installing arch, but if you already know important stuff about repairing or migrating linux machines arch should pose no problem to install.
I don't even use arch just because of the release policy, it's a time waste having to upgrade and reboot every time you need to install a new package because libraries get updated.

>look them up
I mean I just type fdisk --help or whatever if I don't remember the exact syntax. Why do you need to search the internet for something so simple?

This.

>systemD
systemd and is not pronounced "deeh" newshits. all daemons usually have the d suffix

>it's a time waste having to upgrade and reboot every time you need to install a new package because libraries get updated
But that's not true. You only need to reboot for kernel and systemd updates.

If you install a new package that requires libraries that you haven't updated in a while, you're gonna want to do a full upgrade. You end up running into problems with partial upgrades.

nah you do agree with me you just can't admit it. it's a pure time waste to need to be looking up a bunch of install functions that take no time at all to automate, then checking what has changed. you learn nothing if you have a beginner to medium understanding and all it does is take longer for no reason. it's hard because you have to do something you don't need to do on any well designed installer.

the funny thing is I'm sure I've used arch longer than almost anybody here. my first installs were back around 2005-2006 and I've been using it daily for well over a decade. it's pretty fucking obvious how retarded the install system is. it's a waste of time, and if you ever need to install it with no internet connection, which I've had to do, it's even more retarded and a huge waste of time.

you don't learn anything, and the small amount of time the developers have saved by not coding a gui is wasted tens of thousands of times over by all the people who have to look up basic shit for no reason.

I don't see the word "reboot" in this post.

>install takes like 10-15 minutes
>have to do it only once
>huge waste of time
Alright bud. I agree that not just making a simple curses installer or something is silly, but it's really not a big deal.

Should I put pacman -Syu in my weekly crontab?

how many times do you reinstall your main os to care about a one time thing.

there isn't any distro that's hard to install
>inb4 you have to read!
fucker READ. there are better distros out there anyway like gentoo
no user you learn and remember. I do agree that arch fucking sucks but you're making it out to be incredibly complicated when it's so fucking simple. saying that knowing how to fully use your OS is autistic and a waste of time is just fucking retarded and arch doesn't even come close to knowing how to completely use linux. also the point is that it's a flexible installation so you can have it any way you want. if it bugs you that much there's already installers out there

Why Artix over Devuan?

>Users are shills
Stop that!

The same reason why you'd pick Arch over Debian. For an up to date, rolling release install.

>pacman -Syu
>reboot
>x is broken
I don't know

You're retarded. What scripts? Pacstrap just unzips a base install. The rest is install commands and editing like 3 text files, minimally. You've never installed arch or tried to. None of this is true.

Never had this happen to me. Wayland is coming to Plasma soon anyways

nice meme

Attached: .png (804x906, 39K)

>Never had this happen to me
yeah, linux is weird n' shiet

Attached: typical archer.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>756 packages on my arch install
guys please, forgive me

you realize that's actually over 1000 right?

>be me
>use brave for months
>easily favorite browser
>see update
>something about brave 2
>whatever
>install
>all my bookmarks and settings: gone and reset
>couldn't figure out wtf happened
>welp
>back to Firefox

how do you figure?

because arch combines dev packages

>systemd updates
systemctl daemon-reexec

so it's still actually one package

i'm on 534
I might be joining you soon

Congratulations, yet another bandwagoning arch NPC. Yawn.

Didn't even know this existed. I stand corrected then.

yeah but it's a lot more bloated than it would be on any other distro

big if true

so you agree your original statement of package count was a bit long in the nose

yes and no

is btrfs good for normie usage yet? interested in the in-place file compression

never happened to me desu, using arch linux i3 gdm nvidia propertary gpu drivers and compton.

no screen tearing, hw accel working, no kernel panics, hibernation always worked, heavy vm loads, no broken os after updating entire system, running on a 40gb partition, no reinstalls

AFTER 4 FUCKING YEARS, literally since i moved to arch linux.

Attached: 2019-05-19-100859_937x360_scrot.png (937x360, 40K)

You know people keep telling me Arch is no longer shit, but mang did 2006, 2008 and 2012 prove me wrong. Particularly the last time. I didn't use yaourt and after a -Syu no fucking sound and no fucking bug report to monitor/solve the issue.
Fuck arch, ubuntu studio lts all the fucking way.

Do you reinstall Arch that otten that the extra 10 minutes it might take over using an installer is a big deal? I actually really like that the install is this way, because you can easily write an install script yourself that automatically installs and setups the system just how you want it.

no, pretty sure I don't agree with you. retard.
you can script the installation too, just like debootstrap and similars

have you looked into AUI?

found your mistake
aur is like installing random shit from the internet. some of it is good, some of it is bad. your responsibility. imagine a wintard googling "free download john wick 3" installs, gets a virus, then complains windows is shit. this is you.
pacman -Syu + every package on aur that you want, you either gamble and update or check them, its on you.

this implies that after you installed your distro you also never look at the manpages and/or wiki.
you're basically admitting you're a retard.

You are full of shit.

Pic related is genuinely ALL you need to do to get a functioning install.
It takes less than TWO MINUTES to install Arch compared to half an hour you'll be pressing and waiting the install dialog of Ubuntu.

And no. I don't need a manual for this (& neither do you), cause I don't need my hand held for just 10 simple fucking commands.
Seriously, the "Arch/Gentoo is hard to install" meme needs to just fucking die.
I initially fell for the Jow Forums meme that Gentoo is hard to install but it's literally installed the same way like Arch.

Attached: arch_install.png (250x316, 3K)

not him but do people actually live without swap now? is it that uncecessary in 2019?

I haven't used a swap on my personal computers in years.

If you don't use swap you're an absolute retard

Attached: 1550781646187.png (600x720, 51K)

i think the trick is to update everything each two weeks or a month, i've heard some cases when people updating after 6 months breaks their system because sometimes arch linux does some breaking changes

usually i read archlinux.org/news/ before updating to find if a package i use will break something

oh well. it's still nice to have imo

I'm the user you're replying to. Yes, pretty much unnecessary.

I have 6GB of RAM on my x220 and can run fine for months without shutting down.
When I open over 60 Youtube tabs it can just freeze up and I have to reboot it.

So if you have 8GB or more, you'll most definitely never need it.

>fell for the swap meme
COPE.

Swap is pointless unless you're doing a lot of heavy shit on your computers. The most I ever do is compile some shit. It's just wasted space.

You've clearly done nothing but watch YouTube and Listen to music on your computer. Try doing something that's actually intensive.

Attached: 1550785235121.png (856x846, 85K)

>Don't even have to use AUR, just add a third party repo
Why would you do this? Enjoy packaging breaking and malware.
>Fast as fuck
Meaningless. It's actually slower than most distros if you're using the default kernel because it's bloated with everything.

joke's on you my netbook uses /dev/mmcblk0
you also ignore the need to establish an internet connection for pacstrap.
partitioning is made easier with cfdisk and connecting to wifi if the only option is easy with wifi-menu, both of which are visual frontends and included on the arch iso.

everything else is correct though.

well with the DE I'm using, I'm always compiling and gaymen I need the swap

>I'm always compiling and gaymen
This shouldn't really rape your RAM unless you compile something like firefox while playing some heavily intense gaymen.

Bet you also followed the advice to allocate swap space double the amount of your RAM like a good goy (even though you have like 16GB), faggot.

How can it be bloated if the major design philosophy of Arch is minimalism?

I have 16 GB RAM and allocated 4GB to swap.

the point of swap is not to extend your memory pool past your RAM. you're right, it's not effective for that purpose.
the point of swap is to fail-soft when your memory pool is exhausted. that should never happen to you under normal operating conditions, but during abnormal conditions, it's much better to continue operating in a degraded state (so you can e.g. save work) than it is to fail hard.

tfw only 24GB of ram it's not fair bros

but that's exactly what I'm doing. firefox and webkit take a ton of ram

If you actually develop web engine shit, I'm sorry. Good luck man.

Never happens to me. I'll keep the space.

I made it sound way worse than it really is. those two only update once in a while. I'm using a source based distro

If I knew I was something was going to RAM be intensive, I'd just going to do:
fallocate -l 32G swap
mkswap ./swap
swapon ./swap
# intesnive shit
rm ./swap

No need to cuck my partition space for it. Yes, it's going to be slow as shit because of the file system, but swap is slow as shit anyways, so who cares.

Attached: 1524943277213.jpg (500x327, 19K)

>he didn't read the last time was all on the repos
>archer attention span

that's the thing, stability > bleeding edge
I want to know that everything I upgrade and boot it's gonna work the same.
>inb4 cronjobs n' shiet
ubuntu already comes with an auto updater that you can disable/configure

>I like to wait hours to install software for no good reason.
Autism.

That's true only for developers. Typical for an Arch user to be an ignorant newfag:
>lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2015-July/039443.html
>It has never been a minimalist distribution. Splitting packages is rare compared to other distributions, and dependencies aren't made optional whenever possible.
>Arch has *never* been minimalist... a Linux kernel with every module available and every feature enabled at least when there's no non-bloat related cost, feature-packed/complex GNU tools, nearly all optional features enabled across all the packages, etc.
>Arch is the opposite of a distribution with lots of user freedom. Users will come and go based on whether they like the technical decisions made by the developers. The popularily of those decisions has no impact on how things are done, regardless of how vocal users are about it.
>When have you seen the developers state that they care about user freedom, or that the distribution is based on minimalism?
>Community memes don't define the distribution, technical choices by the developers do. It's clearly not based on what you say it is, and *never* has been. It has always used significantly more disk space and a measurable amount of additional memory than Debian and especially Gentoo as a consequence of keeping things simple (again, from a development perspective).
Use Debian/Ubuntu net install if you want a minimal distro. You can build a minimal system exactly like Arch, but of course since there's no wiki to hold your hand, the average Archfag doesn't do it. Arch is not minimal.

>add a third party repo
why

The first thing one notices when installing Arch is that there is no gui. That is quite minimal if you ask me.

makepkg

>it's going to be slow as shit because of the file system
Swap files bypass the filesystem, it's why btrfs didn't support them until recently. Stop offering "advice", you're embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing post desu

Then what's the point of making a separate swap partition?
Where did that meme start if it's just as fast as filesystem?

>if it looks minimal, it must be
You can jump into a terminal in a Ubuntu net install and configure your system package-by-package, file-by-file. Exactly the same "minimalism".

Ubuntu netinst is minimal like Arch though.
It's just that Arch is like that by default. That's why it's called a minimalist distro.

>Swap files bypass the filesystem, it's why btrfs didn't support them until recently.
Isn't that a contradiction?

gentoo is a great distro. stable with fairly recent packages, choice between systemd or openrc, fantastic support and a great helpful community, overlays which is the equivalent to the AUR, fantastic package manager which arguably has the best dependency management. I love it

>>back to Firefox
every fucking time. I no longer even bother to try new browsers. They're gonna be shit or chrome-based.

Legacy norms, since swap file support came later. Plus partitions are guaranteed to be contiguous on disk, where as if you create a swap file on a fragmented filesystem, there may not be enough space for contiguous mapping, affecting performance especially on an HDD.
No? To expose the raw disk to the kernel, the filesystem has to be aware of swap files.

What's the advantage of arch over Xubuntu?

Arch is nice because when I can just install arch-installation-scripts and do genfstab when I can't be bothered to manually edit the file. I couldn't do that without Arch.

if you want to uninstall most of the default packages on xubuntu they're dependencies of xubuntu-desktop, which dpkg will try to take with it (and then everything else it depends on)
less of an issue with xubuntu minimal via net install, but still.

also xubuntu to my knowledge still has old lightdm/lightlocker that shut off the screen on resume from screensaver or sleep.

It's literally Arch but you wait hours for shit to install. I can't stress this enough, and it's almost funny how nimble Gentoospergs dodging this point . Why am I waiting hours for shit to install? Is it for le great, helpful community? Is it for overlays, even though there is AUR? For le package manager even though pacman also provides fairly recent packages, has good dependency management and is fast as fuck?

I'll ask it again, why am I waiting shit for shit to compile for hours? What is my benefit to that? Been stuck using Arch for years, but if Gentoospergs manage to give me a proper answer to this question, I'll switch to it in a heartbeat.

Attached: lizchan.jpg (400x384, 13K)

>he didn't edit his fstab

embarassing, this is what all archtards think?
Even though I like having the latest stable packages I can't stand being lumped with guys like that.